Technology

59588 readers

3375 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

1451

GEICO is Terminating Insurance Coverage of Tesla Cybertrucks, Says “This Type of Vehicle Doesn't Meet Our Underwriting Guidelines” (www.torquenews.com)

submitted 1 month ago by shoulderoforion@fedia.io to c/technology@lemmy.world

237 comments fedilink hide all child comments

GEICO, the second-largest vehicle insurance underwriter in the US, has decided it will no longer cover Tesla Cybertrucks. The company is terminating current Cybertruck policies and says the truck “doesn’t meet our underwriting guidelines.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] lennivelkant@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I'm not sure they ever doubled down on it.

They didn't. Hence my insistence: the original comment probably wasn't intentional as such, nor do I ascribe any malice.

Plenty other people felt the need to ascribe intent, however. That's what I don't understand - why are people so eager to defend a phrasing and potential intent without ever consulting the original commenter?

I just don't want to limit how people express themselves

I made a suggestion and argument why I find "they" better, without ideological insistence or being forceful about it. There's no limiting going on.

Its more important to me that someone express themselves honestly rather than they are politically correct.

The above note and specific context aside, I don't categorically agree. While reasonable argument should be the first resort, there are honest sentiments rejecting reasonable argument that deserve no expression, no space and no opportunity to spread hateful rhetoric. I think it's more important to foster a tolerant environment, suppressing intolerance if necessary to preserve that environment, than to grant universal freedom even to enemies of freedom.

Again, this probably doesn't apply here - I doubt the original comment made a point of exclusion. We're getting way off topic here when all I wanted was to offer an alternative argument for inclusive phrasing.

[–] Rekorse@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

To return to the post, I would say it comes across wrong when you ignore the entire content of the persons post, and only comment about the he or she part. I understand that part is important to you, but you literally ignored the point they were making.

I would suggest to respond to the point, and then make the suggestion you did if that was important to you.

[–] lennivelkant@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

But if I have nothing of substance to add to the point? "This. Also..."? I don't have a Cybertruck or know anyone that does; I can't comment on their quality.

Besides, it wasn't even particularly important to me, just a quick aside. If I care deeply about making people use "they" for inclusion reasons, I'd have written more than a sentence.

[–] Rekorse@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago

I just think thats why you had such an odd set of replies to your seemingly innocuous post. It seemed off topic, not that you are wrong about what you said.